Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

Womberty-

While your arguments are sound, they are as much based on 'feelings' as mine. Those who support abortions rights do not 'feel' that life begins at conception or that a ball of cells has more value than a fully formed and birthed human being. Those who are anti-choice 'feel' something different: life begin at conception, and that life then becomes paramount over the person carrying it. Not equal, but more than equal, for they advocate the loss of a woman's right to choose.

It is in many ways a paradox-one either fully respects the rights of the mother, or she loses control over her body for the time it takes to carry a pregnancy.

I presented the legal/economic argument as the most practical, because many other arguments on both sides tend to be very inflammatory. This looks at it from an economic standpoint, one that is less passionate than the debate over the beginning of life.

Frankly, I think those who are against abortion rights take it a little too far. No one has the authority force pregnancy upon a person, and it is women who exclusively bear the societal burden of caring for infants, despite all that the courts have done to bring social and economic equality to the process. While pro-lifers often offer up glib statements and moral platitudes as to why abortion is murder, I must take issue with them for not only the reasons I stated in my earlier post, but because a woman's fundamental right to control her body is not cancelled out by the unification of egg and sperm.

Another difference between the two camps is that no-one can force an abortion on someone in this country (although it was done in the former soviet union and in china)-but the anti-choice movement wishes to impose it's viewpoint on all.

Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent. I am only stating my opinion, cause frankly, nothing anybody says in this thread is gonna change's anyone's opinion a jot or a tittle.
On that note, continues, the debate does. (we need that clone army now! )

Peace,

V-03

 

Keep it up Womberty. Your doing a great job.

By the way, what is up with all this "woman's fundamental right to control her body"? First of all, it is not a fundamental right. When rights of two different people coincide, one must take priority over the other (ex. a smoker's right to smoke vs. a diner's right to eat in a clean air enviroment. Second, nobody, not even women, have the right to totally control their own body when it will cause harm to society as a whole. Examples of this idea include seat belts, drug laws, the fact that suicide is illegal, etc.

Now, if a baby in its mother is human, killing it would be murder. This is where the issue of rights come in. Some of the people in this thread seem to think that the mother's lesser right to control her body will overshadow the baby's right to life simply because she is already mature. This makes no sense. Dr. Seuss (sp) put it perfectly in his book about the Who's when he wrote "A person is a person no matter how small."

 

While your arguments are sound, they are as much based on 'feelings' as mine.

Actually, any scientific definition of life would have to concede that human life begins before birth, and would almost certainly have to define life as beginning at conception. My definition of human life is not based on where I 'feel' life begins, but on where you can scientifically define human life.


No one has the authority force pregnancy upon a person

No -- if anyone forced a woman to become pregnant, it was an act of rape. However, when a woman makes a conscious decision to engage in unprotected or underprotected sex, she bears the responsibility for any resulting pregnancy, just as the father does. Both made the decision, both had the option to either not have sex or to use effective protection, and both are responsible for the child.


a woman's fundamental right to control her body is not cancelled out by the unification of egg and sperm.

A woman's fundamental right to control her body gives her the right to decide where, when, and with whom to have sex. Her right to control her reproduction allows her to choose to abstain from sex or use some form of birth control to prevent any pregnancy. However, if the way in which she controls her body results in a pregnancy, she has already made her choice and must take responsibility for it.

 

I'm Pro Choice. I think the woman should have a choice as to whether she wants to keep the baby or not. Adoption would be another choice if she wanted the baby to live, but there are so many children up for adoption already, going from foster home to foster home. I can see the viewpoint of people who are Pro Life too, like the baby doesn't get a say in the matter of whether it lives or dies, but I still think it should be an option for women if they can't take care of a baby, due to financial reasons, workaholics, or other factors. Or if they just don't want a baby.

What I find highly ironic though, is people who are Pro Life who kill abortion doctors. I'm not saying every person who is Pro Life does that, but the ones that do are completely contradictory and illogical.

That's my take on it.

 

"What I find highly ironic though, is people who are Pro Life who kill abortion doctors. I'm not saying every person who is Pro Life does that, but the ones that do are completely contradictory and illogical."

While I do not condone those who go out and kill abortion 'doctors', they are not being contradictory or illogical. It is the same thing that the U.S. is doing right now in the war on terror. We are killing bad guys who have killed innocents so they don't kill more innocents. If you support the war on terror, you are of the same mindset as those pro-lifers who kill abortion 'doctors'.

 

Womberty, you are making some good arguments on all counts.

but, "...a human life? Because technically, scientifically, it is."

You can't prove this statement. What is the criteria for determining if something is a human being? I don't know. when it has a brain? When it has skin? I don't know. But I do know there is a before and an after.

Before like 5 or 6 months, it's NOT. After like 7 or 8, it defenitley IS. It's like a fruit growing ripe, or a boy growing into a man, there is no EXACT.

But I believe what we call BABIES have rights, I believe what we call FETUSes and EMBRYO's have no rights except those extended to it by it's mother. And I believe the law and I agree at least on that.

But if you haven't, you should read the Supreme Court decision on ROE V WADE. I find it pretty convincing.

 

I support the war on terror to a certain point. Before war is considered or carried out, other methods should be used first, like diplomacy. If that doesn't work, yes, nuke 'em to the moon. Well, not nuke because that would just be killing more innocent people, but you know what I meant.

And I don't think these two things are related because I've read that there is a reason why abortions are not done after a certain time (3 months, I believe). Because during the time when an abortion is done, the baby hasn't developed a consciousness yet and does not feel pain. Therefore, the baby isn't really alive, technically yes, but not in the sense of a human being with emotions, senses, etc. Terrorism only affects people with emotions, senses, etc which is everyone past the age of 3 months in the womb, as far as scientific research says so the life or death of a person in a terrorist attack and that of a baby in the womb aren't comparible.

Also, abortion doctors are still that - doctors, not 'doctors'. They still practice in the medical field and should be treated with the same respect as any other kind of doctor.

 

First off, abortions, at least in the U.S., can be preformed up to the moment of birth. Second of all, just because the baby cannot feel pain doesn't mean it is not alive. If a retarded person tripped on a stair and went into a coma, would it be all right to slip mercury or some other poison into his bloodstream. Lastly, doctors are supposed to save lives, not take them. Since abortion is taking lives, I do not consider them doctors, just like I would not consider the people who experimented on the Jews during the Holocaust doctors, even if they did heal their own soldiers.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney -

<< You can't prove this statement. What is the criteria for determining if something is a human being? I don't know. when it has a brain? When it has skin? I don't know. But I do know there is a before and an after.

Before like 5 or 6 months, it's NOT. After like 7 or 8, it defenitley IS. It's like a fruit growing ripe, or a boy growing into a man, there is no EXACT. >>

I agree with you. That's why abortions can only be carried out before a certain time ( I think it's 3 months) so the fetus doesn't feel any pain and doesn't have a consciousness, etc.

<< But I believe what we call BABIES have rights, I believe what we call FETUSes and EMBRYO's have no rights except those extended to it by it's mother. And I believe the law and I agree at least on that. >>

Oh, yes, I also agree with you here. There is a difference between a baby and a fetus. A baby is a person who is aware, conscious, feeling, etc, while a fetus is a living thing, but not evolved to any level of sophisticacy. I should have been saying fetus when I referred to it being in the womb. I stand corrected.

Good arguments. =)

 

So, are you saying that a fetus is not human or that a fetus is not alive?

 

Jediflyer -

<< First off, abortions, at least in the U.S., can be preformed up to the moment of birth. Second of all, just because the baby cannot feel pain doesn't mean it is not alive. If a retarded person tripped on a stair and went into a coma, would it be all right to slip mercury or some other poison into his bloodstream. Lastly, doctors are supposed to save lives, not take them. Since abortion is taking lives, I do not consider them doctors, just like I would not consider the people who experimented on the Jews during the Holocaust doctors, even if they did heal their own soldiers. >>

A mentally handicapped person can still feel. They can think. They are alive technically as well as emotionally, just like everyone else (who is not developing in a womb). So no, to kill someone who is mentally handicapped would be just like killing anyone who is not in a womb, and I certainly don't condone murder.

I read an article that specifically said that in Canada, at least, abortions can only be done up to 3 months. So I'm talking about Canada at least, but about the US thing... The woman who is carrying the fetus should still have the ultimate decision, whether the fetus feels any pain or not. It would be preferrable that the fetus doesn't, of course, but no woman should be forced to have a baby if she doesn't want to.

Also, the people who experimented on the Jews in the Holocaust are scientists in my mind. Scientists experiment on things, doctors work in the medical field. Most types of doctors save people, yes, but abortion doctors do not, so it depends what kind of doctor one is talking about. I classify a doctor as someone who works in the medical field with patients and exams, etc. I already defined what I call a scientist.

Anyway, it's late and I'm going to bed. If you reply, I'll reply in the morning. It's been nice discussing this with you this morning.

 

Uh, okay, last post for this morning.

I classify a fetus as TECHNICALLY alive, as in heartbeat, brainwave, etc, but not human. And by human I mean being able to feel emotions, think logically, all the perks of being an evolved life form.

 

Okay, so I said I was going to bed, I couldn't stay away. Another thing came to mind I want to make clear.

I was reading what people were saying about birth control and how abortion shouldn't be used as a form of that and I totally agree. If, however, the birth control doesn't work (they're not perfect), then abortion should be a choice. Also, in the case of rape, of course.

Also, a woman shouldn't have to devote the rest of her life raising kids, giving up her own independant life for the most part for one mistake, like getting drunk and getting pregnant ONCE. While it was clearly her fault for doing so, everyone makes mistakes and while that's a fairly large one, the woman shouldn't be expected to pay for that mistake for the rest of her life.

And again, that goes back to me saying that a fetus is not emotionally alive or capable of logical thought, meaning it is dependant upon its mother for survival and the mother should be allowed to make decisions on its behalf until it is able to do so for itself.

Okay, now I'm really going to bed.

 

That's the problem with making abortion legal. People know that they have this way out. If it was illegal, it would drastically cut the pregnancy rate. It would not eliminate it but it would cut it down. You're right no one can force a woman to carry a child but abortion dehumanizes a human being, a baby. People have to make assumptions that it is not really alive but in fact it is. Abortion is a tough decision in the most extreme cases it might be the only way to save a woman. But it should not be as readily available as it is now. People men and women, have to realize that they have to take precautions as much as possible. People especially young people try to push those precautions to the side. We need to let them know it is not a "last minute choice of birth control" There are so many government programs that give condoms, birth control pills, emergency contraception, iuds, depo shots, even abortions for free. One only has to look. However abortion should not be on that list. It should be something that rarely has to be done because we are killing a soul, someone who did not get the chance to live as we did. this is why we must make abortion illegal except in medical emergencies. In the case of people using every precaution, maybe with doctor approved or consulted that they have tried different options prior to the accidental pregnancy it can be classified as medical emergency. Science has advanced so much that most people nowadays can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Teenagers can get the shot and still use condoms. Condoms and spermicides used together are very effective. this will drastically cut the pregnancy rate and not because more people are having abortions but because people are being more careful. If this is too extreme, i think the first limit president bush should do is no woman can have more than one abortion. One mistake, then that's it she must put it up for adoption or face jail for murder. Because that's what it is folks. The cold hard fact. You just killed your own baby. I don't know how people can live with themselves after. It must be so painful... but to say that it wasn't human... and to do it more than once?that's wrong. It was pure and innocent.

 

If it was illegal, it would drastically cut the pregnancy rate. It would not eliminate it but it would cut it down.

For the first time in my life I'm going to ask you to post proof or retract that statement. Even when abortions were illegal the pregnancy rate of unwed mothers was still high...you have really no grounding on which to state this as fact.

Science has advanced so much that most people nowadays can prevent unwanted pregnancies

Some, not all. Some of them. That means that there are still unwanted pregnancies occuring. I've already listed three families (from the list that I know of) that were using more then one form of contraception when the wife/girlfriend became pregnant.

Kit

 

It should be something that rarely has to be done because we are killing a soul, someone who did not get the chance to live as we did.

That arguement doesn't work, because not everyone believes in a soul. I don't.

 

...the mother should be allowed to make decisions on its behalf until it is able to do so for itself.


Good idea. Let the child grow up and we'll see if he/she commits suicide. At least then the offspring will have made that decision for themselves.

 

You can't prove this statement. What is the criteria for determining if something is a human being? I don't know. when it has a brain? When it has skin? I don't know. But I do know there is a before and an after.

From a scientific perspective, when an egg and sperm combine, a new entity is formed. It has a different genetic composition from either parent, and even when it is just a few cells, those cells comprise that entity in its entirety. This entity is not dead and is not merely an extension of its mother's body. It is living, and it is unmistakeably human.


Before like 5 or 6 months, it's NOT

Even before 5 months, it has already developed a heart, a brain, a head, limbs, fingers & toes (if I'm not mistaken) ... so what keeps it from being human?


Because during the time when an abortion is done, the baby hasn't developed a consciousness yet and does not feel pain.

So... an integral part of being human is an ability to feel pain? If someone was somehow born with a faulty nervous system such that they could feel no pain, does that make them somehow less than human? Can we then use them for experimentation and detroy their body at will?

And are you sure that the baby cannot feel pain? Some of the anti-abortion material I read described what happens when an abortion is performed with the use of a saline solution to kill the fetus. It described the "silent scream" as the fetus reacts violently to the solution. Now, I don't remember whether this was something that happens at 3 months or sometime further in the pregnancy, but I must ask: if a 3-month-old fetus reacts in what appears to be pain, would you still support abortions at that point in the pregnancy?


The woman who is carrying the fetus should still have the ultimate decision, whether the fetus feels any pain or not.

So, even if the fetus does feel pain, it's still not human? Or it is, but it's still okay to kill it?


I classify a fetus as TECHNICALLY alive, as in heartbeat, brainwave, etc, but not human. And by human I mean being able to feel emotions, think logically, all the perks of being an evolved life form.

Do you think a newborn baby has the ability to feel emotions and think logically? I think they are still acting very much on instict, but that doesn't mean they're not human or that we hav the right to end their life.


Also, a woman shouldn't have to devote the rest of her life raising kids, giving up her own independant life for the most part for one mistake, like getting drunk and getting pregnant ONCE.

Yeah... maybe we shouldn't put drunk drivers in jail, either. I mean, if someone had just made one mistake like driving drunk, just once, you shouldn't hold them responsible for that, even if they did hit a school bus and kill a couple of children. After all, they only did it ONCE. Right?

 

to kit, i will not retract my statement because if you take away the option of abortion there will be less abortions and less unwanted pregnancies because it will force people to thinkg every time they have sex and to kinow the risk they take if they get an unwanted pregnancy. maybe more people will be abstinent until a later age. People might become more responsible. I'm not saying that there won't be illegal abortions but i don't want abortion to be so readily available. that's why i feel it should be illegal.

'Rebecca'

"That arguement doesn't work, because not everyone believes in a soul. I don't. "


I also stated that abortion was just another term for baby killing, Do you belive in Baby Killing?, because I don't.

Special Note: Anyone watch the silent scream video? anyone who feels that a baby even 3 months inside the womb does not feel when it is being sucked out of its mother's womb, does not fight and does not cry, or eat, or sleep, or crap, or pee, or scream... you still think it doesn't feel? the silent scream is a camera inserted in the womb as the baby is being aborted. the woman who was in the video later watched it and cried. She regretted her decision. And in Roe vs. Wade, the woman who took her case to the supreme court and made abortion legal, now regrets her decision and has been fighting since then to overturn that decision.

 

I don't believe in baby killing. But I don't believe a fetus before 3 months is a baby.

 

i will not retract my statement because if you take away the option of abortion there will be less abortions and less unwanted pregnancies because it will force people to thinkg every time they have sex and to kinow the risk they take if they get an unwanted pregnancy.

But it doesn't. People don't stop in the heat of passion and go "Aww, geez I really shouldn't do this because I might get pregnant and have to have an abortion." They just don't because they are carried away by the moment, or because they believe that it couldn't happen to them. Or they even believe in those stupid myths about not being able to get pregnant the first time, or while in a bath or something.

Do you want us to go back to the 1960's when they took children away from unmarried mothers and told them (the mothers) that their child was dead and that the couldn't see them. Meanwhile they put the child up for adoption. Even more so, do you want us to end up in a society where mother's have to care for their children, have to look after them because they made a mistake? Do you really want a society of 16 year old mothers?

Many people won't abstain from sex in today's society. Most teenagers most certainly will not be able to due to factors such as peer pressure, pressure from boyfriends and basic curiosity.

I personally don't think we should make the mother have the child if she doesn't want to, and has a very good (note the very, I'm not saying baby's should be killed because they won't go with the lounge suite) reason for it.

Kithera

 

I don't believe a fetus before 3 months is a baby.

Perhaps you're right; perhaps "baby" is not the right term for it. After all, there are physical differences between a 3-month-old fetus and a newborn baby. However, there are also significant differences between a newborn baby and an adult. They are different, but they are both still human. So, I won't ask you why it's not a baby. I'll ask you why it's not human.

 

I believe that abortion should be made illegal. To my knowledge at least both the man and the woman involved both make the decision to mate. With the exception of rape, both decide to run the risk of getting the female pregnant. People should be willing to take responsibility for a child and not just try to get out of a duty. This has been a Mark Moment.

 

Even more so, do you want us to end up in a society where mother's have to care for their children, have to look after them because they made a mistake?

Yes. If a man makes the "mistake" of getting a woman pregnant, he has to provide financial support for that child. You'll hold him completely responsible for his "mistake." Why won't you hold the mother responsible as well?

Calling it a "mistake" won't justify the abortion. As I mentioned before, we hold others responsible for their mistakes all the time. I saw a news story once about a guy who, about 10 years earlier, had gone bar-hopping one night, and on his way home he plowed into a school bus, killing several children. And he's still in prison for that one mistake.

The legal system holds people accountable for their actions. You can't always correct a mistake, and you certainly shouldn't be given a way to correct your mistake by ending another person's life.

 

Ahh yes, men are supposed to pay for their child, but in my experiance many don't.

Besides there is a HUGE difference between monetary support and 24hr care for a new baby.

There is a huge difference between having to give up part of your pay check and trying to deal with a two/five/fifteen year old in the midst of a temper-tantrum.

There is a HUGE difference between having to pay money to someone and having to spend the next twenty odd years providing for them, looking after them, working yourself and trying to deal with the child at the same time.

Until a fool-proof contraceptive that works 100% of the time comes along I think I will always support a mother (and father's because he should be asked too) right to choose.

Kit